01:04 http://esw.w3.org/topic/QaDev
01:04 let's start, then
01:04 agenda in the newly revived wiki...
01:05 and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qa-dev/2005Apr/0004.html
01:07 any other topic you'd like to suggest?
01:08 "Administrative" : Icons news
01:09 I had a chat at the comm team telcon yesterday
01:09 ... the good news is they are willing to move forward with the regeneration of a set of icons
01:10 ... however, they want to use their designer's vector work as a basis, so it seems our experiments with SVG templates will not be used
01:11 ... the process to create IE friendly PNGs was duly noted, though
01:11 ... I guess that makes my AI on the topic moot
01:12 "their designer's vector work"?
01:12 Didn't we ask them to do it? Didn't we ask them, if they don't do it, they at least provide those materials?
01:14 they want some designer they know to refresh all the w3c icons, and they decided that would be the source of all icons, logos
01:15 Then make the use of SVG a requirement for the comission.
01:15 "refresh"?
01:15 + bjoern_ agrees with xover...
01:15 I made that request
01:16 and Chris will show the designer how to create proper SVGs from his illustrator work
01:16 I take it by "refresh" you mean "create new icons" as opposed to fixing the old ones?
01:17 I don't know the details of the "refresh" bit, sorry
01:18 We should tell them that we greatly appreciate their timing and their coordination with us.
01:18 Further, unless they can committ to providing us with badges __to_our_requirement__ in a *timely* manner, that the SVG source be made available to us so we can generate our own from their template.
01:18 + yod not completely happy that our work was not fully taken into consideration in spite of the many times I contacted them, but at least we'll get a set
01:19 And our requirements include proper embeddable fonts, publisheable under the W3C OSS license(s).
01:19 xover: I don't think we have a choice to make ours if we are not happy with the timeliness or anything else
01:20 Working with the comm team is a pleasure, as always.
01:21 at least it's moving forward
01:21 anyway, if you have requests, such as what xover just wrote, send to me, I'll try to steer as much as I can
[later]
02:03 yod: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qa-dev/2005Apr/0006
02:04 xover++
02:04 (I'll probably follow up on the list)
02:04 xover: noted, thanks
01:22 Link Checker : Bug roundup & Release plan
01:22 I think there is no Bug with a target of $TNV
01:23 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__open__&product=LinkChecker
01:23 and the accesskeys issue is closed
01:23 I think accesskeys and localhost redirect where the $TNV's
01:23 so I wanted a quick chat on a release plan
01:24 scop: you're happy with the current state for a release?
01:24 yod, yes
01:25 #1170 is something that could possibly be included
01:25 http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/perl/modules/W3C/LinkChecker/bin/checklink.diff?r1=4.14&r2=4.18&f=h
01:26 hmm, any idea for #1170? scripting?
01:26 nuke the checkbox, rephrase the text?
01:27 hmm, that'd work
01:27 add a "0" value as default?
01:28 fine with me
01:28 + yod fine with adding it to pile
01:28 anyway, it's trivial enough to be included, the only thing is preserving the fieldset layout with the checkbox gone :)
01:28 right
01:29 do you want to own that one?
01:29 yes, I'll take a look
01:29 (iow, do you have time for it in the near future?)
01:29 some, yes
01:30 as soon as this is done, package, upload to cpan, wait a day or so and announce?
01:30 we have a deal
01:31 great
01:31 #1182 is sort of trivial too but I have a weird feeling I sometime thought about it and found something nontrivial about it
01:31 hence I'd like to postpone it from 4.2
01:31 +1
01:33 ... which leads me to my next question: what do you think for TNV... modularization ?
01:33 + yod eager to proceed with it, there are cool ideas that could be used with a link checker API
01:34 I haven't really thought about that much since my early q'n'd backend prototype
01:35 but we still have some functional things to figure out in addition to the technical m12n stuff
01:35 indeed
01:37 my old "library" prototype is still at http://koti.welho.com/vskytta/wlc-wip-0.1.tar.gz in case someone wants to play with it
01:37 I am fine either way, we can continue discussing and tackle m12n when we feel comfortable with it
01:37 + yod takes note of wlc-wip location
01:38 I'd like to discuss the functional stuff (mostly) first, that'll give some additional perspective to m12n thoughts
01:38 ok
01:39 but then again, unfortunately it looks like I'll have even less time for wlc in the coming months than what I've had lately :(
01:40 ...meaning that if someone wants to proceed quicker than I can follow, go right ahead
01:41 ok, will keep that in mind. I am not sure about my own schedule, but if I tackle anything, will you be able to stay in the loop, even if you don't have time to code?
01:42 most likely yes
01:43 ok, we'll do what we can with what we have, as usual :)
01:43 :}
01:44 ah, one small news on CSS validator
01:45 the european team got an intern who will work on its code... I was a bit reluctant, but Yves said he could/would be able to supervise the work
01:46 I should also re-ping plh on his progress on 2.1
01:46 AI olivier ping plh on his progress on CSS 2.1 implementation in css-validator
01:47 CSS 2.1 should move to Last Call in the not too distant future...
01:48 (in order to further progress to PR)
01:48 bjoern_: is may still the target for REC?
01:48 (PR not that soon though)
01:48 I don't think it ever was...
01:48 hmm, I somehow imagined that then
01:49 I might have said something like "certainly not before may"
01:49 http://www.w3.org/Style/2004/css-charter.html (member-only) is the latest charter-draft
01:49 it has a realistic timeline
01:50 bjoern_: possible, yes
01:50 anyway, plh will have some other commitments after may, so we really need to get some of his time now
01:53 Markup Validator
01:53 xover: any news on the style guide and how-to-work-with-w3c-wgs ?
01:54 Not really.
01:55 ok. Do you have any estimate on when you may have time for it?
01:55 I've put two big time-sucking projects at work down and am planning to spend more time on this area now, but no progress as of yet.
01:57 cool re- more time, hope you get some rest too
01:57 we'll follow up later on this, then
01:58 next item was custom DTDs
01:58 seems to me as the last big showstopper for 0.7.0
01:58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qa-dev/2005Apr/0000.html my last mail on the topic
01:58 I really need help, input at least to progress
01:59 from niq too if possible
[nick joins]
02:00 was talking about check's (non) handling of docs with custom DTDs
02:01 hmmm ... As in giving strange reports of exactly what it's validated?
02:02 niq: there are several issues... at the moment, if I understand correctly, check considers no FPI ~ no DTD and proceeds to whine and fallback
02:03 and then there are other issues
02:05 On the DTD stuff; there's a whole bunch of issues interacting here I think, and I don't really have a handle on them yet.
02:05 bjoern_: please do... let's keep the troll level down, though, or it's going to make our life even harder on this
02:05 + xover looks all innocent and stuff...
02:05 + niq takes an action to catch up on qa-dev mailinglist traffic
02:06 niq++, thanks
02:06 xover: I don't have a clear grasp of it either, hence my questions...
02:06 not having done so since I was ill (end-feb/start-Mar)
02:06 On the DTD stuff, I know what the Validator should do, I can't help much with the implementation though...
02:07 I suspect we're running up against conflicting requirements and may have to pick a poison.
02:08 xover: how so?
02:09 OVERRIDE YES|NO seems to be key in several of the cases, and we have far too little, or not sufficiently granular, control over this behaviour.
02:10 didn't it work well until your recent fixes?
02:10 no
02:10 there is only the XHTML fallback issue in the current release version,
02:10 I fixed that in CVS
02:10 That's just it, I think several of the cases yod brings up are actually regressions brough about by my futzing with OVERRIDE a while back.
02:10 I am not aware of issues at that point
02:11 I could be wrong though, I haven't dug very deep yet.
02:11 I also have some reservations about your recent changes to &preparse but I'll get back to those when I've had time to digest them fully.
02:11 xover: I don't think I commited these changes
02:11 just proposed a patch
02:13 My question was whether there were any doctype issues after http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator-cvs/2004Sep/0060.html
02:13 (other than those still open in bugzilla)
02:14 if not, it would be indeed regressions caused by xover's changes
02:15 The change in question wouyld be this one BTW.
02:16 maybe yod could revert that change locally and test?
02:16 I think this (and similar change to sgml.soc) fixed some issues,yes
02:17 I have done a few tests using onsgmls directly with our sgml-lib, will do more and report
02:17 if in the meantime you can give input on / alternatives to my proposed changes to preparse_doctype, that'd be helpful
02:18 As mentioned, I don't have sufficient handle on the issue to provide anything usefull. I'll try to have a look at it in more detail soon.
02:19 (need to dig out old Bugzilla entries to see what we tested against prior to OVERRIDE NO).
02:19 good
02:20 want an AI on it?
02:21 Sure, but don't let that get in the way of you keeping at it! (no easy excuse of "it's xover's AI"!) :-)
02:21 (BTW bjoern_, your entry in the wiki *was* broken after I managed to upgrade/revive the wiki :)
02:21 :-)
02:22 xover: no risk, I really want that fixed... I just need as much help as I can get
02:22 so
02:22 AI olivier to test HEAD sgml-lib for behavior with custom DTD documents
02:23 AI xover to follow up on preparse_doctype and other (custom) DTD questions
Next meeting 26 April